Friend of mine said something about the mechanical web-shooters that I definitely agree with: "The web-shooters decision is fine in theory, since it goes back to the source comic while also giving this movie a huge difference from Raimi’s trilogy. In practice, however, it makes no goddamn sense. We’re explicitly shown that the synthetic webbing is being produced by genetically engineered spiders, and it’s one of these spiders that bites Peter. Given this context, why the hell wouldn’t Peter be able to make the stuff himself? Furthermore, this means that Peter has to order his web cartridges directly from the manufacturer. It’s hard to believe that this stuff would be available for commercial purchase, and harder still to believe that one teenager could order whole crates of it without anyone raising a red flag. Moreover, the knowledge that this webbing could be so easily obtained by anyone in the world makes it a lot less special. If Peter could order whole crates of webbing and make a shooter out of scraps, what’s to stop some other industrious guy from doing the same? God forbid, someone else could figure it out, post a how-to video on YouTube, and we’ve suddenly got a whole nation of webslingers!"

He's probably modified it. He says he developed it himself. I just wonder if it's as biodegradable as it is in the comic books, or if Spidey is leaving strands of webbing all over the place. And watching this new movie, I'm realizing for the first time how many car accidents he'd cause swinging around busy city streets like that all the time.

Another Earth is--surprisingly--a masterpiece. The sweet spot between 2011's cosmological Tree of Life / Melancholia binary.

i had a love/hate relationship with that movie. a lot of the emotional moments were forced and unearned, and i feel resentful of movies which do that. whenever the two main characters weren't having unbelievable interactions i thought it was really good. it's definitely not as good as the other two movies.

also, i associated take shelter with melancholia as much as those other two for different reasons.

I disagree with just about everything you've said here, but I guess I need to see Take Shelter as well.

Just watched Obsession by Brian De Palma, whom I've started to like more than I used to. Possibly the most indebted to Hitchcock as a film can be, Obsession is solid, but lacks gratness in all aspects except the music by Hermmann. The score is fantastic in some scenes, but the lighting was unflattering almost throughout the film and the acting performances were average. So I guess I like the film quite a bit and am glad I finally saw it, but I hope some of the other De Palma films I've got lined up will be better (Dressed to Kill, Blow Out and Sisters)

Venom is a rather polarizing character, some comic book nerds dislike him immensely, particularly the old school comic book fans who pretty much discredit any characters born out of the "darker and edgier" era.

I'm one of those, actually. But I did eventually warm up to Venom. But fuck Carnage. I hate that character.

Dressed To Kill, the next film in my run of Brian De Palma movies, was already much better than Obsession. Again, this film is almost entirely made out of Hitchcock moments, but De Palma really brings out the big guns with his all-out cinematic first person style that though heavily indebted to Hitchcock, surpasses him in length and scope. What I mean is, whereas Hitchcock tends to limit first-person camera moves to a songle shot or moment in the film (as far as I can remember), De Palma constructs long and elaborate waltzes with the camera and takes the awesomeness of the POV shot to quite another level. This playful cinematic approach is something I love dearly, and De Palma has absolutely mastered it. I mean, there must be sequences of twenty minutes or so in this movie where no dialogue is spoken, but where an incredible amount of story is told even as the red herrings keep on falling and falling. Great film.

Moonrise Kingdom A-Wes Anderson has really mastered his trick just like Nixon...I think this movie is probably the pinnacle of his style. It was pretty much like he got a Wes Anderson focus group together and made a movie that just featured what everyone likes most about his movies. It was probably his most well-made movie (either this or The Royal Tenenbaums), but it wasn't really as satisfying as something like Rushmore. It must be frustrating as an artist when you get really good at something but people still prefer your older, less refined stuff.

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie A+/F-It was pretty much exactly like the show, which is to say that the best parts were funny beyond belief, and the worst parts were just completely boring.

Good that most people are digging on Moonrise Kingdom. But honestly, I fail to see why so many people regard this as an Anderson "greatest hits" compilation. He's been making similar movies ever since The Royal Tenenbaums and all five of those are equally different from each other than they are similar. What I mean is, how is Moonrise Kingdom more like his other films than and less different from them than, say, The Darjeeling Ltd. was from The Life Aquatic? There are striking similarities, yet the two movies are entirely different films.

DigitalDreamDoor Forum is one part of a music and movie list website whose owner has given its visitors
the privilege to discuss music and movies, and has no control and cannot in any way be held liable over
how, or by whom this board is used. If you read or see anything inappropriate that has been posted,
contact webmaster@digitaldreamdoor.com. Comments in the forum are reviewed before list updates.
Topics include rock music, metal, rap, hip-hop, blues, jazz, songs, albums, guitar, drums, musicians...